Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 16:35:24 -0400
From: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Subject: Attitudes and vocatives (was: Lojban recordings)
In-reply-to: <199509190441.AAA23736@locke.ccil.org> from
 <"jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU"@Sep>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Reply-to: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Message-id: <01HVH7PKLIJM000OLM@FIPORT.FUNET.FI>
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2274
Lines: 53

la xorxes joi la djan cusku be di'e casnu
 
> What if I want to say "I got your offer, let me think about it". Is there
> no way then of acknowledging without commiting one way or the other as to
> acceptance?
 
How about "je'e.iecu'i"?
 
> Well, blame involves assignment of responsability for an action, while
> disapproval is simply a way of feeling towards an action. I may disapprove
> of something you do, but if I think that you have a right to do it, blame
> is totally out of place. Blame will enter only if the question of who is
> responsible is relevant for some reason.
 
Your definition of "blame" seems too broad:  surely there is an element
of condemnation in it.  I hold that JCB is responsible for Loglan, but I
don't blame him for Loglan; however, I do blame him for the errors in his
book.
 
OTOH, I blame Bush for involving the U.S. in the Gulf War, although I
concede that he had a right to do so.
 
> Then what is the meaning of "acceptance" in that scale? It's very
> confusing. Is it acceptance in the sense of "things are what they are,
> nobody is to blame, nobody is responsible, it was an act of God"?
 
I'm definitely out of my depth here.  Someone who was in on the attitudinal
redesign needs to comment.  (lojbab, are you listening?  Ask Nora, please.)
 
> > To paraphrase some remarks made in The Loglanist about (the Loglan
> > equivalent of) "coi", "je'e" is neither gracious nor ungracious, but
> > merely correct.
>
> But the whole point of a response to "thank you" is to be gracious,
> not correct. What is a "correct" response to it? Would it be incorrect
> to not respond anything?
 
It would be grounds for suspecting that the other person hadn't heard you,
so you might repeat the "ki'e" until you got a "je'e".
 
> It would be impolite, nothing more, but then
> responding "je'e" is not much more polite, unless it is the standard way
> of doing it in the language, but usually there is at least a facade of
> politeness in the standard formula.
 
If you wish to express an actual feeling, use an attitudinal.  If you
just want to indicate that you have played your role in the conversational
protocol, use a vocative.
 
--
John Cowan                                      cowan@ccil.org
                e'osai ko sarji la lojban.